> And I'd assume I am right in the following.
>
> > + * ATOM_INVALID equals to the size of valid_atom array, which could help us
> > + * iterate over valid_atom array like this:
> > + *
> > + * for (i = ATOM_UNKNOWN + 1; i < ATOM_INVALID; i++) {
>
> I find it far more intuitive to say
>
> for (i = 0; i < ATOM_INVALID; i++)
>
> than having to say UNKNOWN+1.
>
> In any case, the values should be indented, and a comment should
> ensure that the final one stays at the end, perhaps like this.
>
> enum atom_type {
> ATOM_INVALID = -2,
> ATOM_UNKNOWN = -1,
> ATOM_REFNAME,
> ...
> ATOM_ELSE,
> ATOM_MAX /* MUST BE AT THE END */
> }
>
> (note that the trailing comma is deliberately omitted).
>
> It would allow people to say
>
> for (i = 0; i < ATOM_MAX; i++)
>
> instead, which would be even nicer.
I think ATOM_INVALID and ATOM_MAX all will have a
similar effort. Why don't we omit one of them?
For the time being, all the used_atom entry create in
`parse_ref_filter_atom()`, we directly use
`used_atom[at].atom_type = i;` after realloc the used_atom.
There is no time for "ATOM_UNKNOWN" at all.
I don’t know if it makes a lot of sense use "ATOM_UNKNOWN"
at the moment.
--
ZheNing Hu
